I've been a bit busy so I haven't had time to read and comment on a link my friend and debate partner sent to me. In this case he only said I would want to know about it. Last Sunday, the New York Times published an editorial promoting the idea of federal civil unions with religious exemptions. It was written by David Blankenhorn, who has said some weird things about gay marriage, and by Jonathan Rauch, who is a gay conservative and wrote the book "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good For Gays, Good For Straights, and Good for America." I've admired Rauch in the past.
We know the basic issue: Gays demand the support of marriage for their loves and families. Many religious people think that God can't possibly tolerate such an abomination. We're at an impasse.
So the proposal is to
meet halfway: Gays get federally supported civil unions, giving all the benefits of marriage except name. Religious institutions don't have to honor them. To make sure of that last part they propose the federal civil unions only take effect in states that enact those religious exemptions. Doing it this way would head off a "long-term take-no-prisoners conflict."
One might wonder why the existing Bill of Rights -- the First Amendment part that allows religious institutions to not marry any couple that doesn't fit their guidelines -- isn't enough. Apparently such institutions also don't want the possibility of being forced to provide benefits to the spouse of a gay employee (even if done with the federal dime) or recognize a gay spouse in a religious hospital.
My reaction: It won't work.
We already have a "long-term take-no-prisoners conflict."
Many religious institutions -- as Utah demonstrates in one of today's other posts -- aren't just trying to protect marriage. They want to completely eliminate gays. Their long-term efforts have consistently been to thwart
any recognition of gays and gay rights. Federal civil unions contradict that goal. In the broader culture wars, gays are only one piece. Must we compromise on everything else too, such as abortion? (Alas, in some sense, we have. Do you know how many counties where women have no access to abortions? About 87%)
Gays would remain upset that churches are allowed to remain bigots on the federal dime. Our taxes are being used to pay for our second class status.
Federal civil unions may indeed be a step towards marriage, though many gays would fear that halfway measure would become permanent. However, providing such a broad religious exemption only enshrines bigotry. We didn't exempt churches from civil rights laws protecting blacks. Laws banning interracial marriage were given religious justification.
Other gay voices also call the proposal
flawed. Some of the ideas mentioned:
The religious viewpoint is morally and intellectually bankrupt -- witness how much of their arguments are based on lies or are based on visions of catastrophic results.
Gays have already compromised with state-by-state civil unions. While some gays get some protections and benefits, this patchwork is leading to the judicial efforts that Fundies are up in arms about.
A compromise like this would only work if both sides have equal power. As in all civil rights issues, that is a flawed assumption. One side holds the power and refuses to give any of it up.
When making compromises one must pay very close attention to its consequences that may take years to undo, forcing us to live with an unequal system in the meantime. The original proposal doesn't discuss such costs, never mind asking whether such long-term costs are worth the short-term gains. One long-term cost is too many straights will feel the problem has been "solved" even if gays are left with inequalities.
Even in this compromise some gays don't see what the Fundies are giving up. A compromise means each side gives up a bit. Yet, Fundies still get to be bigots. Perhaps it will be a compromise if we give religious people the word "marriage" and all government institutions refer to civil unions.
In what other area of American law do we allow a religious exemption? If we allow it here how far will the exemptions go?
Federal civil unions would only provide federal benefits in states that already have gay marriage or civil-unions. If your state (like Michigan) bans both, you're out of luck.
The reasons for the "religious exemption" clause are already included in other laws. Which means Fundies aren't interested in a religious exemption. They want to ban everyone from recognizing gay marriage. Gays won't have to reject this compromise because Fundies will -- the fight against civil unions has been just as strong as for marriage.
Political history suggests a compromise isn't necessary. DOMA could fall in a couple years and the Supreme Court ruling in our favor could come in 15.
How about this idea: ban recognition of Mormons, then move on to Southern Baptists and other Fundie denominations.
I wrote all that yesterday but a browser/website glitch prevented me from posting it before I dashed to help at the Ruth Ellis Center. Just as well, here's a bit more on the story.
There were a couple
nasty comments made in the last few days, both by Colorado state senators. One was in response to a bill to grant benefits to same-sex partners of state employees (they've come a long way from Amendment 2 in the 1990s which tried to ban gay friendly laws). As part of his argument Senator Scott Renfrew quoted Leviticus, stressing that gays should be put to death.
The other was Senator Dave Schultheis who voted against a bill that would provide for HIV testing of pregnant women at a time when the results could prevent the fetus from contracting the virus. His reason is that such a test would promote promiscuity and the baby deserves to get AIDS.
These people have no intention of ever compromising. The federal civil union "compromise" has no chance of getting their approval. Which I guess means there is no need to carve out a religious exception.
One of the commenters to this posting brought up 1 Samuel 18:20-21:
And Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. And Saul said, "I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Wherefore Saul said to David, "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time." (American Standard Version)
Second time? That means the first time was when David and Jonathan were married?
